Change for Caldera OpenLinux Workstation

[Lutz Horn]

Hi all

* Georg C. F. Greve <greve at gnu.org> [20010628 19:00 +0200]:
>  || On Thu, 28 Jun 2001 18:30:09 +0200
>  || Lutz Horn <lh at lutz-horn.de> wrote: 
> 
>  lh> We could consinder the guidelines set up by the Debian
>  lh> project. They mark all non-free packages clearly. Even a Virtual
>  lh> RMS is included in form of a little tool called vrms. This gives
>  lh> you a list of all non-free packages currently installed on your
>  lh> system.
> 
> Please note that the "level of freedom" for Debian packages is
> determined by the Debian Free Software Guidlines, which are not
> satisfactory. If we are going to do something like this, we need to
> apply the Free Software definition of the FSF.

This is correct. But at least they care about the problem and provide an
easy way to determine if a system contains non-free software even if
this is measured by their own guidelines. I guess it's difficult enough
for a project the size of Debian GNU/Linux to get all people pulling in
one direction. I remember discussions last year about dropping support
for the non-free packages altogether. This resulted in some heated
arguments :-)

But since we are talking about criteria here, one would be if the
distribuor cares about the idea of free software or if he produces a
"value-added" distribution. Of all the mainstream distributions I know
about (RH, SuSE, Debian, Slackware?) Debian GNU/Linux is the only one
actively informing their users about the notion of free software.

Another criteria could be the naming of the game. I think Debian
GNU/Linux is a shining example when it comes to naming the distribution
correctly :-)

Regards
Lutz
-- 
Lutz Horn <lh at lutz-horn.de>
For PGP information see header.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 240 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.fsfe.org/pipermail/discussion/attachments/20010628/b0969e90/attachment.sig>